I'll probably vote for him. I mean, I did 4 years ago, and the other options are even worse so. It makes sense. Unless it's literally gonna be 1 vote between trump and hilldawg, then I guess I'd vote for her.

It's a different era because of Perot. After Perot they changed the requirements in such a way that NO third party candidate in the history of the country would be allowed in the debates. The debates are also put on by a private group run jointly by the Republicans and Democrats. It's designed to be exclusionary and prevent anyone else from ever having a chance to disrupt things the way that Perot was able to.

Right now Johnson/Weld isn't even being included in the polls so there's no way they'll be able to poll at 15% because they aren't even being included in the polls.

It's amazing that we don't have national, public debates that have a rational requirement for inclusion, like being on enough ballots to establish a mathematical possibility of winning the election.

That's sort of the one great hope with Trump, that it will break the system so profoundly that it forces some kind of reorganization of the parties and possibly opens the eyes of the voters to the fact that there are other alternatives.

im a stein supporter but can see that based on the sum of everyones views in this country, johnson should win the election. i don't see why any conservative or moderate would vote for anyone other than johnson. I can see why a liberal or progressive would believe hillarys lies and vote for her over stein or johnson though.

Probably never. I'd have to check, but I don't think the green party can't win the election based on electoral math (only on ballot in 21 states) and Stein is polling lower than Johnson.

I'd like for everyone who could theoretically win enough electoral votes to be in the debates, but it ain't gonna happen. I'm pleasantly surprised that CNN is doing this, but I doubt they'll give Johnson much more run than this unless something changes dramatically.

^^The media hates Trump? Are you crazy? The dude is ratings gold. They even give his yes-boys hours of time on the talking heads shows. It's all Trump all the time. I think you need to re-calibrate your foil hat ]

I mean, I think he's great personally - has executive experience and seems right on the stuff I care about.

The media doesn't take him seriously though. He's just useful. When he stops being useful, they'll destroy him like every other libertarian. He's racist, he doesn't care about the poor, he wants big corporations to be able to sell poison water to babies, he wants to turn the United States into Somalia, etc.

Quote :

"The media hates Trump? Are you crazy? The dude is ratings gold. They even give his yes-boys hours of time on the talking heads shows. It's all Trump all the time. I think you need to re-calibrate your foil hat"

I think the media owners probably like Trump. The talking heads don't like him because he upstages them.

"Free market baby. They do what gets the most eyeballs and clicks. More profits = happy shareholders. What's the alternative? C-SPAN for all??"

I completely agree. I don't like it, but it's what sells.

That's why you can have news organizations (MSNBC, CNN) pushing for a week that Donald Trump masked himself as his own Public Affairs guy 30 years ago like it's a big story how he lied, but never mentioned the multiple times Clinton lied.

Because Donald Trump is hot right now, and Clinton is a known evil.

But dang, it's frustrating that people are that idiotic (like, Idiocracy idiotic) to not wake up...if only the truth and actual issues sold to the public.

With so many on the right saying that a vote for Gary Johnson would be a vote for Hillary Clinton and so many on the left saying that a vote for Gary Johnson would be a vote for Donald Trump, doesn't, at some point, a vote for Gary Johnson just become a vote for Gary Johnson?

"With so many on the right saying that a vote for Gary Johnson would be a vote for Hillary Clinton and so many on the left saying that a vote for Gary Johnson would be a vote for Donald Trump, doesn't, at some point, a vote for Gary Johnson just become a vote for Gary Johnson?"

Yes. That whole argument is fundamentally flawed. If they insist on framing it in those terms, then a vote for Gary Johnson is the same as abstaining, NOT the same as voting FOR whatever candidate they are against. This line is frequently used by Trump supporters. They of course want you to vote for Trump.

If you vote for Trump instead of Clinton, then your vote created a two-vote differential between Trump and Clinton. If you actually voted for Clinton, it would be a two-vote differential in reverse order.

By voting for Gary Johnson or any other candidate, the impact on the Trump-Clinton differential is the same as an abstention. It creates only a 1-vote differential when compared to voting FOR one of the two main-party candidates.